Subject: RE: Being and Time-section one
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:23:31 +0000


Paul Murphy wrote:

>but being is not something we can quantify under a microscope, even the
>genetic, biologistic origins of consciousness are not understood, even
>today.  Might we conflate being with consciousness?  What can we
>counterpoint or contrast being with, essentialism, genetic accounts of the
>origins of consciousness, or biblical accounts, creation myths of African
>nations, Celtic legends, Wagnerian opera, folk songs, fairy tales, dreams?

Heidegger's most general counterpoint or contrast against Being is beings. 
He says that Being has always been confused with some particualar being. The 
things you list above are some instances of this. Some of the more obvious 
examples of this are: medievals identified Being with God (a being), and 
characterized all other beings as participations of God's Being; modern 
materialists identified Being with matter, so that the ultimate ground of 
any existent must be material principles; idealists identified Being with 
some kind of consciousness. These are examples of some ways throughout 
western history in which Being has been conflated with some particular 
being.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---